Telangana High Court
The Special Deputy Collector vs J. Rama Rao on 7 March, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
L.A.A.S.No.275 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is preferred by the Special Deputy
Collector, SRSP, Pochampad, Nizamabad District, aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed in O.P.No.12 of 2006 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Reference Court’).
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the Reference Court.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that based on the
requisition made by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Division Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation SRSP Pochampad, the agricultural lands
at Temborni Village have been acquired, for the purpose of
submergence under Sriramsagar Project. Draft notification and
draft declaration proposals have been published in the Gazette on
19.11.1999 and 20.11.1999 respectively. After conducting due
enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer has granted Rs.9,000/- per
acre besides statutory benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
2
claimants have filed a petition for reference and the same was
referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Senior Civil
Judge at Nirmal.
4. The Reference Court has framed the following point for
consideration:
“1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer to the claimants needs any enhancement, if so, what
would be just and reasonable compensation?
2. To what relief?”
5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants got examined PW1
and got marked Ex.A1. On the other hand, the respondents got
examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1.
6. Based on the evidence on record, the Reference Court has
enhanced the compensation from Rs.9,000/- per acre to
Rs.20,000/- per acre and also granted additional market value
@12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act on the market
value from the date of notification or date of possession whichever
is earlier till the date of award. Aggrieved by the said
enhancement, the Special Deputy Collector has preferred the
present appeal.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
3
7. Heard the submissions of learned Government Pleader for
the appellant and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation and
it has simply taken into consideration, another award passed by
the Court for the lands acquired in an adjacent village and went
ahead in enhancing the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per acre,
which is contrary to law. Learned counsel further argued that the
additional market value cannot be granted from the date of
possession but it can only be considered from the date of
notification and also that the interest cannot be awarded from the
date of possession. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the award
passed by the reference Court by allowing this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
Reference Court has rightly considered Ex.A1 and has enhanced
the market value and that the facts of the said OP are similar to
the present case and hence, the order and decree passed by the
reference Court do not need any interference, and therefore, prayed
to uphold the same.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
4
10. Considering the above rival contentions, this Court frames
the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the claimants are not entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
2. Whether the claimants are not entitled to
additional market value @12% from the date of
dispossession till date of realization?
3. Whether the claimants are not entitled to the
interest from the date of dispossession till date of
realization?
4. Whether the order and decree of the reference
Court need any interference?
5. To what relief?
11. POINT NOs.1 AND 2:
a) The record discloses that on 18.02.1976, the possession of
agricultural lands in Temborni village was acquired by the
irrigation authorities in pursuance to a requisition made by the
Executive Engineer, Land Acquisition, DNSRP, Pochampad. The
Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 30.03.2005 but
the award with regard to the lands under reference was deferred on
the ground that they are the Poramboke lands. Thereafter, the
pattadars filed petition along with Faisal patti, Pahani patrak and
letter addressed to the Mandal Revenue Officer requesting to make
payment of compensation. Thereupon, draft notification and draft
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
5declaration were published on 19.11.1999 and 20.11.1999
respectively.
b) The claimants before the Reference Court have not filed any
sale deeds for reference. So also no sales statistics are reflected in
the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as revealed from
Ex.A1. It is elicited that no sales transactions took place in the
preceding three years as on the date of draft notification, because
the entire village was under sub-mergence. Ex.A1 further reveals
that Land Acquisition Officer has relied on the market value fixed
by the reference Court in O.P.No.729 of 1984 wherein the rate of
wet double crop lands were fixed @Rs.9,000/- per acre.
c) The claimants, on the other hand, have relied upon the
orders passed by the reference Court in O.P.No.07/2000 relating to
the land in the same village.
d) RW1/claimant has stated in his evidence that he used to
produce paddy crop and get an income of Rs.10,000/- per acre
after deducting all expenses.
e) RW2 is one of the claimants in O.P.No.07 of 2000 and he
deposed that his land and the land of the claimants are in the
same village and adjacent to each other, both lands are similar in
nature and fertility.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
6
f) PW1 is the referring officer in the case on hand, he admitted
that the entire village was submerged. He further stated that the
land owners who lost their lands for the same purpose are entitled
to receive same amount of compensation without any
discrimination. Ex.B1 i.e. certified copy of judgment in O.P.No.07
of 2000 dated 17.04.2006 is considered by the reference Court and
thus, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per acre.
g) The first contention raised by the appellant counsel is that
the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation
based on the judgment pertaining to earlier O.P. whereunder, the
lands of another village were acquired. A perusal of the record
reveals that both the villages are adjacent to one another and the
purpose for acquisition is one and the same i.e. submergence
under Sriramsagar project. Therefore, the contention of the
appellant counsel cannot be considered in this regard.
h) Then the second contention raised by the appellants counsel
is with regard to the additional market value i.e. granted by the
reference Court from the date of dispossession to the date of
realization.
i) It is pertinent to refer Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the
same is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
7“23.(1-A) In addition to the market value of the
land, as above, the Court shall in every case award
an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per
centum per annum on such market value for the
period commencing on and from the date of the
publication of the notification under Section 4 Sub-
Section (1), in respect of such land to the date of
the award of the Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier”.
j) Thus, a plain reading of Section 23(1-A) would infer that 12%
of additional market value has to be awarded from the date of
publication of notification under 4(1) to the date of the award of
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is
earlier.
k) In Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v.
M.A.Jabbar 1, it was held that the possession having already been
taken on 15.02.1965, i.e. before publication of the notification
under Section 4(1) which was on 06.03.1980, the award of
additional amount for the period from 06.03.1980 to the date of
making award i.e. 30.09.1983 is perfectly correct.
l) It was observed by the Apex Court in Asstt.Commr., Gadag
Sub-Division v. Mathapathi Basavannaewwa 2 that if possession
is taken prior to the notification, then the strict construction of
23(1-A) would lead to unjust result, hardship to the owner and
1
(1995) 2 SCC 142
2
(1995) 6 SCC 355
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
8
defeats legislative object. Therefore, in its view, the expression
“whichever is earlier” in Section 23(1-A) had to be construed in that
backdrop and the claimant is entitled to the additional amount
from the date of taking possession. Since advance possession was
taken prior to the publication of notification under 4(1), ‘the
claimants, by necessary implication are entitled to the payment of
the additional amount by way of compensation from the date of
taking over possession for the loss of enjoyment of the land.
m) Analyzing these two decisions, the Constitutional Bench in
Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer3
has held that from Section 23(1-A), the starting point for the
purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded @12% p.a. on
the market value is the date of publication of Section 4(1)
notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date
of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier.
In the present case, the possession of the land having been taken
prior to the publication, that terminal is not available. The only
available terminal is the date of the award. Therefore, it was held
that the appellants are entitled to the additional compensation
under Section 23(1-A) from the date of notification till date of
award. By holding so, the Apex Court has held that the decision
3
(2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 142
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
9
laid down in M.A.Jabbar (supra 1) is the correct law, while the
decision rendered in Mathapathi Basavannewwa‘s case (supra 2)
has not been correctly laid down. Thus, the Apex Court has
finally held that the additional market value has to be awarded
from the date of notification till the date of award. Therefore, the
contention of the appellant’s counsel is valid and in conformity
with the law laid down by the Apex Court.
n) In view of foregoing discussion, in the present case, it is held
that the additional market value of 12% needs to be granted from
the date of notification but not from the date of possession.
12. POINT NO.3:
a) With regard to the interest that is to be awarded. It was held
in R.L.Jain v. DDA 4 that publication of notification is sine qua non
for any proceedings and if possession is taken prior to the issuance
of notification, it would not be in accordance with the Section 16 or
17 and it will be without any authority of law and consequently
cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, if at
all any interest has to be awarded, it is from the date of
notification, but not from the date of dispossession. It was further
held that where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the
preliminary notification, it will be just and equitable that the
4
(2004) 4 SCC 79
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
10Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the
property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the
compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition
of the property.
b) Further, in Tahera Khotoon v. Revenue Divisional
Officer 5, the decision of R.L.Jain (supra 4) was discussed and it
was further held that the rents/damages at the rate of 15% on the
compensation is to be awarded from the date the landowners were
dispossessed till the date of issuance of the preliminary
Notification.
c) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in R.L.Jain
(supra 4) and in Tahera Khotoon (supra 5), it is held that the
claimants would be entitled for the interest from the date of
dispossession. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
13. POINT NO.4:
In view of the reasoned finding arrived at point No.1 to 3, the
order and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed in O.P.No.12 of 2006 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal need to be modified with
regard to the additional market value and the interest. The
Reference Court has awarded 12% of additional market value from
the date of possession till the date of award, which is not tenable in
5
(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 613
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
11the eye of law. Therefore, it is held that the claimants are entitled
for additional market value @ 12% per annum under Section
23(1-A) of the Act on the enhanced amount from the date of
notification till the date of award. The claimants are also entitled
to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of dispossession for
the first one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the date of
realization.
14. POINT NO.5:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the
order and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed in O.P.No.12 of 2006 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal, to the extent of additional
market value and the rate of interest i.e. the claimants are entitled
to additional market value @ 12% per annum under Section
23 (1-A) of the act on the enhanced compensation from the date of
notification till the date of award and with regard to the interest
the claimants are entitled to the interest on the enhanced
compensation including solatium from the date of dispossession
@ 9% per annum for the first one year and thereafter @ 15% till the
date of realization. The remaining award so far as the
compensation awarded by the reference Court shall stand
confirmed. No costs.
AKS,J & ETD,J
LAAS No.275_2014
12
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J
Date: 07.03.2025
ns
